/
19660427_senate_25_s31.xml
3589 lines (3589 loc) · 337 KB
/
19660427_senate_25_s31.xml
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<hansard xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation="../../hansard.xsd" version="2.1" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance">
<session.header>
<date>1966-04-27</date>
<parliament.no>25</parliament.no>
<session.no>1</session.no>
<period.no>5</period.no>
<chamber>SENATE</chamber>
<page.no>593</page.no>
<proof>0</proof>
</session.header>
<chamber.xscript>
<business.start>
<day.start>1966-04-27</day.start>
<para>The <inline font-weight="bold">PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Alister McMullin)</inline> took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers. </para>
</business.start>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>593</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>HOUSING</title>
<page.no>593</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>593</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KUD</name.id>
<electorate>VICTORIA</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MCMANUS, Francis</name>
<name role="display">Senator McMANUS</name>
</talker>
<para>- I direct a question to the Minister for Housing. When Commonwealth finance is granted for housing, is the allocation of the shares as between State Housing Commissions and co-operative housing societies entirely a matter for State decision, or is the Commonwealth able to influence such allocation? Can the Minister suggest how co-operative housing societies in Victoria can obtain a more adequate share of the financial allocation? </para>
</talk.start>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>593</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K28</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">RANKIN, Annabelle</name>
<name role="display">Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN</name>
</talker>
<para>- The Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement specifically provides that at least 30 per cent, of the moneys should be made available to the Home Builders' Account. There is no further influence - I think that is the term the honorable senator used - by the Commonwealth, but I note that of the $15 million which was made available recently as added assistance, in my own State of Queensland 40 per cent, of the State allocation was made available to the Home Builders' Account, and this must have been of great assistance to building societies. The second part of the honorable senator's question was: How can the co-operatives get a better share? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>593</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KUD</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MCMANUS, Francis</name>
<name role="display">Senator McManus</name>
</talker>
<para>- In Victoria, where they get only 30 per cent. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>593</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K28</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">RANKIN, Annabelle</name>
<name role="display">Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN</name>
</talker>
<para>- My suggestion is that, in whatever State they may be, they make strong personal representations to the Premier of the State or the State Minister for Housing and put their case to him. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>593</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>IMPORTS</title>
<page.no>593</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>593</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>DV4</name.id>
<electorate>WESTERN AUSTRALIA</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">WITHERS, Reg</name>
<name role="display">Senator WITHERS</name>
</talker>
<para>- I direct a question to the Minister for Customs and Excise. I preface my remarks by referring to newspaper advertisements inserted by the Department of Customs and Excise which I saw in some major newspapers in the week after Easter. These advertisements invite Australian importers to apply for quotas to import certain goods at special rates of duty from less developed countries. Would the Minister care to advise the Senate of the nature of these quotas which will be allocated by his Department? </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>593</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JZQ</name.id>
<electorate>NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
<party>LP</party>
<role>Minister for Customs and Excise</role>
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">ANDERSON, Kenneth</name>
<name role="display">Senator ANDERSON</name>
</talker>
<para>- On 7th April the Minister for Trade and Industry made a statement relating to the Government's decision to admit a certain range of products from less developed countries. In his statement he indicated that the details and necessary administrative arrangements and procedures would be handled by the Minister for Customs and Excise through the Department of Customs and Excise. The information that the honorable senator seeks is quite comprehensive and does not lend itself to inclusion in a reply at question time, but I propose to ask for leave of the Senate tomorrow and, if I get the leave, to make a statement on the procedures that the Department will apply in the application of this quite new and very important process in relation to less developed countries. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>593</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>YUGOSLAVIA</title>
<page.no>593</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>593</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KVK</name.id>
<electorate>NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MULVIHILL, James</name>
<name role="display">Senator MULVIHILL</name>
</talker>
<para>- Will the Minister representing the Minister for External Affairs be making a statement in the chamber today on the new diplomatic links existing between Australia and Yugoslavia? </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>593</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KH5</name.id>
<electorate>VICTORIA</electorate>
<party>LP</party>
<role>Minister for Works</role>
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">GORTON, John</name>
<name role="display">Senator GORTON</name>
</talker>
<para>- Assuming that leave is given to me to do so, the answer is: Yes. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>593</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY</title>
<page.no>593</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>593</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K69</name.id>
<electorate>WESTERN AUSTRALIA</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">SIM, John</name>
<name role="display">Senator SIM</name>
</talker>
<para>- I preface my question to the Minister representing the Minister for the Navy by referring to the editorial in the " West Australian " of 25th April which advocated that a naval base be established on the west coast of Australia. Has the Minister made any comment on the proposal? If not, will he state his views on it? </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>593</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KTL</name.id>
<electorate>NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
<party>CP</party>
<role>Minister for Repatriation</role>
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MCKELLAR, Gerald</name>
<name role="display">Senator MCKELLAR</name>
</talker>
<para>- The statement in the newspaper referred to was not brought to my notice previously. The best thing that I can do is to refer the question to the Minister for the Navy and obtain an answer from him. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>593</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>NATIONAL INVESTMENT CORPORATION</title>
<page.no>593</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>593</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JZB</name.id>
<electorate>NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">FITZGERALD, Joseph</name>
<name role="display">Senator FITZGERALD</name>
</talker>
<para>- Can the </para>
</talk.start>
<para class="block">Minister representing the Prime Minister elaborate on the suggestion of the Acting Prime Minister that the Government should set up a national investment corporation to channel investments into national projects? Does this suggestion mean the introduction by the Government of capital issues control? </para>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>594</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KH5</name.id>
<electorate />
<party>LP</party>
<role />
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">GORTON, John</name>
<name role="display">Senator GORTON</name>
</talker>
<para>- I cannot elaborate, and would not endeavour to elaborate, on a newspaper statement attributed to the Acting Prime Minister. I am not aware of the terms nor of the report nor do I know whether the report accurately represents what was said. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>594</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>TELEVISION</title>
<page.no>594</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>594</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KAS</name.id>
<electorate>VICTORIA</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">WEBSTER, James</name>
<name role="display">Senator WEBSTER</name>
</talker>
<para>- My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Postmaster-General. Is it a fact that licensees of metropolitan commercial television stations were advised by the PostmasterGeneral that the Australian content of television programmes was to be increased to50 per cent, as from 18th January 1965? If this is so, will the PostmasterGeneral supply details to the Senate of the Australian proportion of programmes on each of the commercial stations in the various capital cities which received these instructions? What action will be taken against any commercial stations which have not complied with these instructions during the months of January, February and March 1966? </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>594</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JZQ</name.id>
<electorate />
<party>LP</party>
<role />
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">ANDERSON, Kenneth</name>
<name role="display">Senator ANDERSON</name>
</talker>
<para>- The question clearly necessitates a reference to the Postmaster-General. It seeks information which it is not within my competence to give and I ask, therefore, that it be placed on the notice paper. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS</title>
<page.no>594</page.no>
<type>answers to questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>594</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KKP</name.id>
<electorate>QUEENSLAND</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">GAIR, Vincent</name>
<name role="display">Senator GAIR</name>
</talker>
<para>-I direct my question to the Acting Leader of the Government in the Senate. Before this sessional period of the Senate concludes will he endeavour to obtain replies to the 50 or more questions by honorable senators which still remain on the notice paper unanswered, and notice of several of which was given last year? What are the chief impediments to a more expeditious flow of answers to questions, particularly those which do not incur much research or the collation of figures? Is the customary long delay in the supply of answers due to an indifference to questions on the part of Ministers or the dilatory conduct of departmental officers or both? </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>594</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KH5</name.id>
<electorate />
<party>LP</party>
<role />
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">GORTON, John</name>
<name role="display">Senator GORTON</name>
</talker>
<para>- I will ask Senate Ministers who represent Ministers in another place to endeavour to expedite answers to questions which they have passed on to Ministers in another place. A Senate Minister who represents a Minister in another place cannot be sure that these questions will be answered promptly but I believe they do their best in this regard. There are of course a number of questions - not all - which require quite a considerable amount of research before answers can be given. I believe there is no indication, and there has been no indication, of indifference to questions on the part of Ministers in this place. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>594</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>TRANSPORT COSTS</title>
<page.no>594</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>594</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KPG</name.id>
<electorate>QUEENSLAND</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">KEEFFE, James</name>
<name role="display">Senator KEEFFE</name>
</talker>
<para>- I preface my question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Acting Prime Minister, by requesting that the reply be expedited because of the urgency of the matter. I ask: Will the Minister advise whether the report of the Committee of Investigation into Transportation Costs in Northern Australia - commonly known as the Loder Report - has been fully considered by Cabinet? If Cabinet has not completed its consideration of the report, when is it likely to be completed? If Cabinet has dealt with the report, when will it be available for discussion by Parliament and when will its contents be made available to interested organisations and persons in Northern Australia? </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>594</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KH5</name.id>
<electorate />
<party>LP</party>
<role />
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">GORTON, John</name>
<name role="display">Senator GORTON</name>
</talker>
<para>-I take it that the report was made available to a particular Minister. Is that correct? </para>
</talk.start>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>594</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KPG</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">KEEFFE, James</name>
<name role="display">Senator Keeffe</name>
</talker>
<para>- As far as I know, it was made available to Cabinet. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>594</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KH5</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">GORTON, John</name>
<name role="display">Senator GORTON</name>
</talker>
<para>- It must have been called for from a Minister. I will endeavour to find out for <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Keeffe</inline> whether the report was, in the normal way of reports, made available to a Minister, who the Minister is, and what the present position is in regard to its consideration. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>594</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>HELICOPTERS</title>
<page.no>594</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<para class="block">(Question No. 797.) </para>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>594</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KVK</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MULVIHILL, James</name>
<name role="display">Senator MULVIHILL</name>
</talker>
<para>asked the Minister representing the Acting Prime Minister, upon notice - </para>
</talk.start>
<list type="decimal-dotted">
<item label="1.">
<para>Under what circumstances are helicopters in the possession of the various branches of the armed services deployed to aid State authorities? </para>
</item>
<item label="2.">
<para>Does any set programme exist where such helicopters can be used regularly to spot bush fire outbreaks? 3.In the naval sphere can small naval craft and helicopters be used to combat trespassing by fishermen on lighthouse bird sanctuaries and other islands defined as fauna reserves? </para>
</item>
</list>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>595</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KH5</name.id>
<electorate />
<party>LP</party>
<role />
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">GORTON, John</name>
<name role="display">Senator GORTON</name>
</talker>
<para>- The Acting Prime Minister has provided the following answers to the honorable senator's questions - </para>
</talk.start>
<list type="decimal-dotted">
<item label="1.">
<para>Helicopters of the armed services may be used to assist civil organisations in time of emergency when other resources, including Service fixed wing aircraft and civil helicopters, are not suitable or are inadequate for the particular task. In addition, Service helicopters may perform urgent tasks of national importance for government departments when other resources, including Service fixed wing aircraft and civil helicopters, are not suitable. </para>
</item>
<item label="2.">
<para>Consistent with the foregoing policy no set programme exists for the regular use of Service helicopters to spot bush fires. </para>
</item>
<item label="3.">
<para>The policing of fauna reserves is a matter for the relevant State authorities. </para>
</item>
</list>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>595</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>ARTERIOSCLEROSIS</title>
<page.no>595</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<para class="block">(Question No. 803.) </para>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>595</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JXX</name.id>
<electorate>SOUTH AUSTRALIA</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">DRURY, Arnold</name>
<name role="display">Senator DRURY</name>
</talker>
<para>asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice - </para>
</talk.start>
<list type="decimal-dotted">
<item label="1.">
<para>Is it a fact that 12 sufferers of arteriosclerosis, who were informed by their doctors that they were incurable and that the only relief for their complaint was amputation of the limbs, travelled at great expense and hardship to themselves and their families to the clinic of <inline font-weight="bold">Dr. Moller</inline> in Kassel, Germany, for oxygen therapy treatment and have returned to Australia again able to lead normal lives? </para>
</item>
<item label="2.">
<para>Will the Minister arrange for a panel of doctors to examine the medical reports ofthese persons, which it is understood are readily available, prior to their going overseas and also interview and examine the same people who are willing to co-operate? </para>
</item>
<item label="3.">
<para>If such a panel were satisfied that the treatment of these people was successful, would the Government consider (a) inviting <inline font-weight="bold">Dr. Moller</inline> to Australia to demonstrate his method of treatment or (b) sending one or more doctors to the clinic of <inline font-weight="bold">Dr. Moller</inline> to study his methods for the purpose of using them in Australia? </para>
</item>
</list>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>595</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K28</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">RANKIN, Annabelle</name>
<name role="display">Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN</name>
</talker>
<para>- The Minister for Health has furnished the following reply - </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<list type="decimal-dotted">
<item label="1.">
<para>I understand that some Australians suffering from arteriosclerosis have been to Germany to receive <inline font-weight="bold">Dr. Moller's</inline> oxygen therapy treatment, but I am not aware of the number. I am informed that <inline font-weight="bold">Dr. Moller</inline> does not claim to produce a permanent cure for arteriosclerosis and that he advises his patients that repeated courses of treatment will probably be necessary. 2 and 3. At the request of my Department, <inline font-weight="bold">Dr. Moller</inline> has provided detailed reports describing his methods of treatment. These have been studied by some of the most eminent university and medical authorities in Australia, including the Royal Australasian College of Physicians. Each of these authorities has reached a similar conclusion, expressing the view that there is nothing in <inline font-weight="bold">Dr. Moller's</inline> reports which in any way establishes proof that his oxygen therapy is of greater value in the treatment of arteriosclerosis than other methods at present in use. I might mention that <inline font-weight="bold">Dr. Moller</inline> uses standard methods of treatment on his patients in addition to intra-arterial oxygen injection. </para>
</item>
</list>
<para>The honorable senator may be aware that, in addition, a very senior and highly qualified physician from my Department's Central Office visited <inline font-weight="bold">Dr. Moller's</inline> clinic in Kassel in July 1965, with the Department's senior medical officer stationed in Germany, to study his methods of treatment. These officers undertook a thorough investigation and had discussions with <inline font-weight="bold">Dr. Moller</inline> personally. They have confirmed the opinion that the efficacy of <inline font-weight="bold">Dr. Moller's</inline> oxygen injection therapy for peripheral arteriosclerosis is not proven. Although it may be of some value in certain cases, there is no available evidence to indicate that it is in any way superior to other, more orthodox, forms of treatment. </para>
<para>In the circumstances, I do not consider that there would be any advantage to be gained by inviting <inline font-weight="bold">Dr. Moller</inline> to come to this country to demonstrate his methods of treatment. </para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>595</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>HEART DISEASE</title>
<page.no>595</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<para>(Question No. 824.) </para>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>595</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K6F</name.id>
<electorate>SOUTH AUSTRALIA</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">CAVANAGH, James</name>
<name role="display">Senator CAVANAGH</name>
</talker>
<para>asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice - </para>
</talk.start>
<list type="decimal-dotted">
<item label="1.">
<para>Are there 14 natural science institutions in England and Scotland? </para>
</item>
<item label="2.">
<para>Is Australia one of the few civilised countries without a natural science institution? </para>
</item>
<item label="3.">
<para>Did an interview take place between a <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Ashton,</inline> a natural scientist with British qualifications, and <inline font-weight="bold">Dr. Wienholt,</inline> Commonwealth Director of Health in New South Wales? </para>
</item>
<item label="4.">
<para>Did <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Ashton</inline> claim that he could cure heart disease by natural science? </para>
</item>
<item label="5.">
<para>Did <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Ashton</inline> submit proof of his claim? </para>
</item>
<item label="6.">
<para>Did <inline font-weight="bold">Dr. Wienholt</inline> submit a report on this interview to the Commonwealth Department of Health? </para>
</item>
<item label="7.">
<para>Could such report, or the opinion of <inline font-weight="bold">Dr. Wienholt</inline> on the claim of <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Ashton,</inline> be made available? </para>
</item>
</list>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>595</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K28</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">RANKIN, Annabelle</name>
<name role="display">Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN</name>
</talker>
<para>- The Minister for Health has furnished the following reply - 1 and 2. It is known that " natural science " institutions, which are privately conducted, have been established in a number of countries, including England and Scotland. No such institutions exist in Australia. 3 to 7. Following claims by <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. H.</inline> C. Ashton of Coogee, New South Wales, that "natural science " is successful in the treatment of heart disease, arrangements were made for <inline font-weight="bold">Dr. L.</inline> J. Wienholt, Commonwealth Director of Health in New South Wales, to interview him personally. During the interview, which lasted for several hours, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Ashton</inline> was given ample opportunity tosubmit evidence in support of his claims. <inline font-weight="bold">Dr. Wienholt</inline> duly submitted a full and lengthy report on the interview which was closely examined by other senior medical officers of my Department. All came to the conclusion that the methods of treatment which <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Ashton</inline> advocates have no proper scientific basis and are of notrue value in the treatment of heart disease. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>596</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>POSTAL DISPUTE</title>
<page.no>596</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<para class="block">(Question No. 858.) </para>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>596</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KUD</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MCMANUS, Francis</name>
<name role="display">Senator McMANUS</name>
</talker>
<para>asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, upon notice - </para>
</talk.start>
<list type="decimal-dotted">
<item label="1.">
<para>What was the nature of the agreement between the Amalgamated Postal Workers Union and the Government, the breach of which by a strike the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Monk,</inline> has condemned this day? </para>
</item>
<item label="2.">
<para>Will the Government give the A.C.T.U. the first opportunityto take disciplinary actionto preserve the good reputation of the trade union movement for observing agreements, before resorting to court action? </para>
</item>
</list>
<para>The circumstances have altered a little since I put this question on the notice paper about a month ago. </para>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>596</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JZQ</name.id>
<electorate />
<party>LP</party>
<role />
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">ANDERSON, Kenneth</name>
<name role="display">Senator ANDERSON</name>
</talker>
<para>- The PostmasterGeneral has supplied the following answers - </para>
</talk.start>
<list type="decimal-dotted">
<item label="1.">
<para>The agreement signed on the 8th April 1964 provided, among other things, that the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Amalgamated Postal Workers Union would not support any stoppage of work on any industrial issue in future but would negotiate and, failing agreement, would go to arbitration. In the event of the men stopping work, the A.C.T.U. and the Union agreed that the prescribed penalty provisions of the Public Service Act would be appropriately applied. </para>
</item>
<item label="2.">
<para>This appears to be a matter between the A.C.T.U. and the Union. </para>
</item>
</list>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>AUSTRALIAN DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS WITH YUGOSLAVIA</title>
<page.no>596</page.no>
<type>miscellaneous</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>Ministerial Statement</title>
<page.no>596</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>596</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KH5</name.id>
<electorate />
<party>LP</party>
<role />
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">GORTON, John</name>
<name role="display">Senator GORTON</name>
</talker>
<para>-(Victoria; Minister for Works). - by leave - I am pleased to be be able to inform the Senate that the Governments of Australia and Yugoslavia have agreed to establish diplomatic relations and to exchange ambassadors. Yugoslavia occupies a significant place in the world because of its special relations and contacts with other countries in eastern Europe and because of the role it plays in many of the meetings and activities of uncommitted countries. It is also a country with which Australia has developed a number of practical contacts, particularly in the field of migration. We want to see the contacts between the two countries develop further. </para>
</talk.start>
<para>The Australian embassy in Belgrade will be opened by a charge d'affaires, who is expected to arrive there with some staff in the latter part of next month. An ambassador, resident in Belgrade, will be appointed later. We look forward also to the establishment in Canberra of an embassy of Yugoslavia. </para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY SUPREME COURT BILL 1966</title>
<page.no>596</page.no>
<type>bill</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>Second Reading</title>
<page.no>596</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<para>Debate resumed from 31st March (vide page 382), on motion by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Gorton</inline> - </para>
<quote>
<para>That the Bill be now read a secondtime. </para>
</quote>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>596</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>1L5</name.id>
<electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MURPHY, Lionel</name>
<name role="display">Senator MURPHY</name>
</talker>
<para>.- This Bill has been treated in the second reading speech of the Minister for Works <inline font-weight="bold">(Senator Gorton)</inline> as consequential to the Judiciary Bill, which was dealt with by the Senate yesterday. The Judiciary Bill deals with matters affecting the. administration of justice generally throughout the Commonwealth, insofar as Federal and Territory courts are concerned. It covers matters such as the admission of legal practitioners, their right to practise, the discipline of such persons, and a host of other matters, such as the laws to be applied in the States and Territories when Federal jurisdiction is being exercised. </para>
</talk.start>
<para>The particular amendment which was the principal object of the Bill dealt with yesterday concerned the rights of legal practitioners to practise in States and Territories, other than those to which they were admitted, and in Federal courts. The Bill was concerned not merely with the rights of the legal practitioners but also, and more importantly, with the rights of the citizen to have the legal advice and assistance that he might want wherever the legal practitioner was practising, provided it was in a State Supreme Court or Territory Supreme Court. The decision of the Senate yesterday was to ensure that no restriction will be placed upon a practitioner's right to practise in the Territories. Such a restriction would, in effect, enable barriers to be placed around the Territories so as to exclude persons who were otherwise obviously qualified. </para>
<para>The Bill which we are debating today deals specifically with the Australian Capital Territory. Insofar as the Judiciary Bill gave certain rights to legal practitioners and certain rights to persons to avail themselves of the services of legal practitioners, the Senate has adopted the view that there should be no possibility of a barrier surrounding any Territory. The Judiciary Bill dealt in general with the Territories. The position in the Australian Capital Territory is covered by the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court Act. The provisions of that Act which relate to the matter I am discussing are to be found in section 40, which stales - </para>
<quote>
<para>The parties in any cause or matter may appear before the Supreme Court either personally or by such barristers or solicitors as have the right to practise in any Federal Court. </para>
</quote>
<para class="block">That provision is to be noted for two important reasons. The first is that it properly deals with this question, not as a matter of the right of barristers or solicitors to practise, but as a matter of the right of the parties in the cause or matter to appear either personally or by barristers or solicitors. That is the first thing that the Parliament has recognised - that this is a matter of the right of the citizen and not primarily the right of the legal practitioner. The next matter is that up to this stage the Parliament has provided that the persons who could so represent citizens in this Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court were those who had the right to practise in any Federal court. We seek to preserve that position. </para>
<para>Those who supported the stand taken by the Senate yesterday did not want any power to be conferred which would enable some restriction to be placed upon that right. Such a restriction might have been placed on that right in a number of ways - either by cutting down the right to be admitted or by permitting persons to practise only if they were admitted in the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court. The second aspect is important, because even if a person were given the unqualified right to be admitted, this is not the same thing as the right to practise. A case might be coming on in the Supreme Court of the Territory, in a week or in a month or two months and a citizen, either inside or outside the Territory, concerned in the case might want the services of some legal practitioner from elsewhere. It is not enough to be able to say that that legal practitioner has the right to be admitted in the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court. The right to be admitted is not the same as the right to practise and, commonly, all sorts of notices have to be served, appearances have to be made before the Supreme Court and certain moneys have to be paid. There is generally associated with legal matters a considerable amount of red tape that has to be gone through before the right to be admitted becomes the right to practise and so, in plain terms, the citizen may not be able to avail himself of the services of the advocate he desires, because that person could not be admitted in time to deal with the litigation. </para>
<para>So far as the Territories generally are concerned we, in the Senate, have preserved the rights of the citizen. The rights have not been cut down. We have excluded from the complementary Bill the power which would enable such rights to be cut down. When we turn to this Bill we find that there is a change in the wording of the provision to govern the right of citizens to be represented. Section 40 of the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court Act states - </para>
<quote>
<para>The parties in any cause or matter may appear before the Supreme Court either personally or by such barristers or solicitors as have the right to practise in any federal Court. </para>
</quote>
<para class="block">In lieu of that section the Bill proposes to insert the following provision - </para>
<quote>
<para>A party in a cause or matter may appear before the Supreme Court either personally or by a barrister or solicitor having the right to practise in the Court. </para>
</quote>
<para class="block">On reflection it seems to us that the amendment which was made to the Judiciary Bill by the Senate yesterday would prevent any restrictions being placed on the right to admission or on the right to practise which would exclude from practise in the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court those who had the right to practise in any Federal court. I put it in these terms because, as has already been indicated, the Judiciary Bill is a very confusing measure </para>
<para class="block">I think this was pointed to by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Wright.</inline> It seems to the Opposition that, in this confusion, the rights have been protected and it is not necessary to insist upon the preservation in the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court Act of the existing section 40. In order to effectuate the scheme which the Government has proposed, of enabling admissions in the Territory, it would only be right, in any event, that some such provision as is in the proposed new section 40 be inserted because this is necessary to cover the persons who may be admitted in the Territory by the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court. The Opposition does not object to that. As we envisage it the clause, as so phrased, would now operate in consequence of what was done by the Senate to the Judiciary Bill to preserve the existing rights which were incorporated in section 40. </para>
<para>It does seem to the Opposition, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. President,</inline> that the rights of the citizens conferred in the Judiciary Bill provisions are being properly secured in this Bill. If there is any doubt about that aspect, we would like to hear from the Minister as to whether or not his advisors consider otherwise. Subject to any suggestion that such rights were not being secured, we would have no opposition to the measure as it stands, it being merely consequential. </para>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>598</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KH5</name.id>
<electorate>Minister for WorksVictoria</electorate>
<party>LP</party>
<role />
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">GORTON, John</name>
<name role="display">Senator GORTON</name>
</talker>
<para>. - in reply - This is clearly a Committee matter and I think we might go into the Committee stage of the Bill before any further discussion. </para>
</talk.start>
<para>Question resolved in the affirmative. </para>
<para>Bill read a second time. </para>
<para class="block">In Committee. </para>
<para>Clause 1 agreed to. </para>
<para>Clause 2. </para>
<para>Section 40 of the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court Act 1933-1965 is repealed and the following section inserted in its stead: - "40. A party in a cause or matter may appear before the Supreme Court either personally or by a barrister or solicitor having the right to practise in the Court.". </para>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>598</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KBW</name.id>
<electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">WRIGHT, Reginald</name>
<name role="display">Senator WRIGHT</name>
</talker>
<para />
</talk.start>
<quote>
<para class="block">In view of the fact that we have gone into Committee without hearing a reply from the Minister for Works <inline font-weight="bold">(Senator Gorton)</inline> to the matters raised in the second reading debate, may I say what I wish to say on this matter now? I have not given consideration to this Bill. It is a simple measure and is entirely complementary to the Judiciary Bill. The sole purpose of the Judiciary Bill, despite the fact that it ran over five pages, was, I think, to restrict the right of people in other parts of Australia to practise in the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court. Fortunately the Senate altered that Bill. The first thing I want to say in the light of that is that it seems to me that the Bill has no purpose of substance at all. This Bill is brought in to repeal the existing section 40 and to substitute a new section. The existing section 40 says - </para>
</quote>
<quote>
<para>The parties in any cause or matter may appear before the Supreme Court either personally or by such barristers or solicitors as have the right to practise in any federal Court. </para>
</quote>
<para class="block">If under the existing law you have a right to practise, then you have a right to appear for a litigant before the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court. Clause 2 of the Bill now before us seeks to repeal existing section 40 of the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court Act and to substitute the following section - </para>
<quote>
<para>A party in a cause or matter may appear before the Supreme Court either personally or by a barrister or solicitor having the right to practise in the Court. </para>
</quote>
<para class="block">So the only effect of the Bill, in terms of language, is to substitute the words " the Court " for the words " any federal Court ". </para>
<para>A former Chief Justice of the High Court, <inline font-weight="bold">Sir Owen</inline> Dixon, in a comparatively recent case threw some doubt upon the wisdom of the approach that is usually made to such matters. In a veiled suggestion, he said that you should not always treat the actual words that are used in print as having been meticulously prepared in order to express the intention of the Parliament. His Honour went on to say that perhaps not at all times when the Parliament alters language does it necessarily mean to indicate a substantial alteration of purpose. It is the usual approach for most judges, if they see an amendment such as is proposed to section 40, to find a meaningful difference. I do not think such a difference will be found here. I do not think it can be suggested that the draftsman can be understood to be speaking in the light of the amendment that was made to another measure last night. I do not think it can be suggested that the substitution of the words " the Court " for the words " any federal Court", if this Bill is considered in joint operation with the Judiciary Bill as passed last night, will alter the meaning of the section. I put my view on record because, if it later becomes necessary to deal with a claim as to the operation of this legislation, at least for my satisfaction there will be a record of the view that I take. I do not think that this measure achieves anything. </para>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>599</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JQQ</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">CORMACK, Magnus</name>
<name role="display">Senator Cormack</name>
</talker>
<para>- In other words, it is meaningless? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>599</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KBW</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">WRIGHT, Reginald</name>
<name role="display">Senator WRIGHT</name>
</talker>
<para>- It is quite meaningless in substantial legal operation. The present law allows any practitioner who has a right to practise in any Federal court to practise in Canberra. Last night when dealing with the Judiciary Bill, we left proposed section 55b (1.) in the form in which it stood. It provides - </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<quote>
<para class="block">Subject to this section, a person who - </para>
<list type="loweralpha">
<item label="(a)">
<para>is for the time being emitted to practise as a barrister or solicitor, or as both, in the Supreme Court of a State; or </para>
</item>
<item label="(b)">
<para>is for the time being entitled, under a law (including this Act) in force in a Territory, to practise as a barrister or solicitor, or as both, in the Supreme Court of that Territory, has the like entitlement to practise in any federal court. </para>
</item>
</list>
</quote>
<para class="block">So if the existing language stood, those same persons would have the right to practise in the Australian Capital Territory. New section 55d, of the Judiciary Act provides - (1.) Subject to this section, a person - </para>
<list type="loweralpha">
<item label="(b)">
<para>whose name is on the roll of barristers, of solicitors, of barristers and solicitors or of legal practitioners of the Supreme Court of a State or Territory, is entitled to practise as a barrister and solicitor in any Territory. </para>
</item>
</list>
<para class="block">So, upon a combination of those two sections, those persons would have a right to practise in any Federal court and in any Territory. But taken in conjunction with the language of existing section 40 which gives a specific right to practise in the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court to any person who has the right to practise in a Federal court, this in my view would ensure an unconditional right. The provisions of this Bill would alter the words " in a Federal court " to a right to practise in " the Court "-that is the Court of the Territory - but that right is assured by the language I have read from the Judiciary Bill to persons who have enrolment in the Supreme Court of aState or a Territory. </para>
<para>So I would think the amending Bill is unnecessary. <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Murphy</inline> has indicated a viewpoint regarding the amendment which has been circulated. I would suggest that each of them is unnecessary. Notwithstanding that, if the Minister's advice is that the Bill is necessary and if he can assure us that its operation and effect will be no different from what I have attempted to state, I would not oppose it. I believe my view is identical with <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Murphy's</inline> interpretation of its operation. </para>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>599</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>1L5</name.id>
<electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MURPHY, Lionel</name>
<name role="display">Senator MURPHY</name>
</talker>
<para>. - It is the common desire that the Bill be amended, if it be amended at all, to carry out the intention of the Senate which was expressed in relation to the Judiciary Bill and so as not to create any conflict between the two measures. No one would want such conflict. My view of the position is the same as <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Wright's.</inline> However, I have been handed a statement which came from the Parliamentary Draftsman and I suggest that one important consideration should be borne in mind. I refer to the position of a citizen who might want to understand what this legislation is about and the right of persons from elsewhere who might want a similar understanding. It does not seem right that such persons should look up the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court Act and find in it an expression which might mislead them. Proposed new section 40 states - </para>
</talk.start>
<quote>
<para>A party in a cause or matter may appear before the Supreme Court either personally or by a barrister or solicitor having the right to practise in the Court. </para>
</quote>
<para class="block">Reading that, one could well be left with the impression that a barrister or solicitor could not represent a client unless he had been admitted to practise in that court. It is true that if you knew your way around this confusing complexity of the Judiciary Bill you would know the answer, but it may be that persons would be confused by the previous provisions which gave the right to practise in the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court to those who have the right to practise in any Federal court. That has been deleted and another provision inserted. </para>
<para class="block">The commonsense approach is to express the position in clear terms, consistent with the other Bill, and to state what is no doubt the intention of the Government. That is, to leave what is now proposed in die Bill and insert after the words that appear there now - or in any Federal court or court of any Territory. </para>
<para class="block">That would mean that persons looking at the Bill would know what the position was without having to undertake an investigation of the complex provisions of the Judiciary Bill which caused some confusion in the Senate yesterday. If that commends itself as a proposal which would meet what I understand to be the common desire, I move - </para>
<quote>
<para>That clause 2 be amended by inserting after the words " practise in the Court " the words " or in any Federal Court or in the Court of any Territory ". </para>
</quote>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>600</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KH5</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">GORTON, John</name>
<name role="display">Senator Gorton</name>
</talker>
<para>- Is the honorable senator abandoning the amendment he foreshadowed earlier? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>600</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>1L5</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MURPHY, Lionel</name>
<name role="display">Senator MURPHY</name>
</talker>
<para>- Yes, I abandon the one which I circulated and 1 substitute the one which 1 have just moved, on the understanding that this merely preserves the position but makes clear what is the effect of the repeal and substitution of the present clause. It is a matter that goes to clarity. It does not, as we conceive it, produce any alteration in the substance of the law; but, after all, the substance is not the only thing to be considered. Clarity is also important - the understanding that it gives to a citizen and those who are required to know its provisions. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>600</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KH5</name.id>
<electorate>Victoria</electorate>
<party>LP</party>
<role>Minister for Works</role>
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">GORTON, John</name>
<name role="display">Senator GORTON</name>
</talker>
<para>. - The substance of the new amendment is, as far as I can discover, significantly the same as the substance of the amendment that was circulated. The Bill, as presented to the Committee by the Government, proposes to repeal section 40 of the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court Act, which gives to anybody who has a right to practise in a Federal Court the right to practise in the Supreme Court of the Territory. The Bill proposes to make clear that those who can appear before the Supreme Court for their clients are those who have the right to practise in the court, and those who have that right to practise in the court are defined in the Bill passed yesterday by the Senate as those who are on the roll of any Supreme Court. The Bil) as it left the Senate gives to those people an unrestricted right to practise in the Supreme Court of the Territory. This Bill proposes to cross out what was thought to be ^ redundant section giving anybody who has a right to practise in a Federal Court the right to practise in the Supreme Court, and we have already said that those who have that right are those who are enrolled in a Supreme Court of a State or a Territory. That appears to the Government to go quite far enough and, indeed, to be all that is necessary to provide, as we have heard it suggested is necessary to provide, for clients a capacity to bring in representatives from outside to practise in that Court. </para>
</talk.start>
<para>I understand, although I hope my advisers will make it clearer to me, that it would be possible, for example, for any Federal practitioner, that is anyone who has a right to practise in a Federal court - this stems, I understand, from being on the register of the High Court which in turn stems from being on the roll of the Supreme Court - to practise in Territory courts. But the reverse of this may not be true. Although I have not actually received <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Murphy's</inline> subsequent amendment, I have heard its terms. I understand he wishes to add the words: " or in any Federal court or in any court in any Territory ". The Government would prefer the Bill to stand as it has been presented to the Senate. </para>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>600</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KBW</name.id>
<electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">WRIGHT, Reginald</name>